Mr Jonathan Corner v Triton Risk Management Limited — 2024

Mr Jonathan Corner resigned on 27 October 2022 after a disciplinary and appeal process concerning allegations that a member of his team had been absent from the Wilton site without authorisation. The tribunal found that his resignation was triggered by the combination of his perception of a flawed investigation and disciplinary process and Triton’s email of 12 October 2022, which led him to believe that his appeal had been wholly successful and that he could return to work, when in fact the appeal had only been partially successful and Triton intended to seek redeployment or consider dismissal for some other substantial reason.

The tribunal accepted that Triton was entitled to investigate the client’s concerns and to convene a disciplinary hearing, and it also found that the appeal hearing itself was conducted fairly. It held, however, that the aftermath of the appeal was not handled fairly: the 12 October email was fundamentally flawed and conveyed an entirely false impression, and the later documents showed that reinstatement was conditional. The tribunal did not accept Triton’s account that Anglo American had initiated a third-party removal; it found that Triton had sought confirmation from the client that Mr Corner should not return, had not shown that it had tried to persuade the client to change its position, and had presented a false account to Mr Corner and in the proceedings.

Applying the constructive dismissal authorities, the tribunal found that the misleading email and Triton’s conduct around the supposed third-party removal amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It held that Mr Corner had not affirmed the contract by remaining in employment until 27 October 2022 and that the breach was the effective cause of his resignation. The tribunal therefore concluded that he had been constructively dismissed within section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and that the dismissal was unfair. Liability only was determined in this judgment; the parties were directed to try to agree compensation or apply for a resumed remedy hearing.